The Communists and the Labour Party. How Moscow Helped MacDonald. (1931)

From the October 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Young workers attracted to the Communist Party by its denunciation of the recent Labour Government and of the Labour leaders in the National Government, are often unaware that the Communist Party for years supported the Labour Party and urged the workers to place power in their hands. The Communists now wish many of their past activities forgotten. They do not want the workers to remember that the Communist Party willingly associated with the MacDonalds and Hendersons in the anti-working-class policy of preaching that the way to Socialism was through “Labour” Governments and capitalist reforms. But it is important that these activities should not be forgotten, nor their lessons overlooked. The hold that MacDonald and Henderson, Thomas and Clynes, and the other Labour Party defenders of capitalism have over the minds ot the workers has been strengthened by the work of the Communist Party and the Communist International in the past ten years. Below is a brief record which will show that this serious charge against the Communists is founded on indisputable evidence taken from their own official publications.

1921—Opposition to the Labour Party.

In March, 1921, the Communists opposed Mr. J. R. MacDonald, then standing as Labour candidate at Woolwich East in a by-election, and in August of the same year they ran a candidate, Mr. R. Stewart, against the Labour candidate, Mr. Morgan Jones, at Caerphilly, Glamorgan. On both occasions the Communists denounced the Labour candidates and the Labour Party in the most downright manner. Mr. R. Stewart made the accusation that leading members of the Labour Party were “responsible for the . . defeat of the miners” in the lock-out which occurred that year. He justified the Communist Party’s opposition to the Labour Party in quite simple and straightforward terms. In an article in the Communist (August 20th, 1921) he wrote :—

“But, it may be asked, why do the Communists oppose the Labour Party at Parliamentary elections? We oppose the Labour Party for the simple reason that it is not a Labour Party at all.” (Italics his.)

He faced up honestly to the charge of “splitting the vote,” and gave a direct answer :—

“The answer to all that is that the Communist Party is splitting not the “Labour Vote”—whatever that may mean !—but the voters in two important divisions—those who understand the need for the overthrow of capitalism and those who do not. We leave these latter to the Labour Party.” (Ibid.)

1922—Trying to join the "Labour" Circus.

In 1922 the Communists completely reversed their policy. They were applying for affiliation with the Labour Party. The Executive Committee of the Labour Party asked whether the Communist Party “proposes and intends to become a loyal constituent of the Labour Party, conforming at all points with its constitution and working for the promotion of its objects.”

The answer given by the Chairman of the Communist Party on their behalf contained the following :—

“The answer to this question is that the Communist Party in the event of affiliation intends to conform to the constitution of the Labour Party, without prejudice to its right of criticism on policy or tactics in common with all affiliated bodies.” (Communist, June 10th, 1922.)

In other words, they were now seeking to join a party which they declared was “not a Labour Party at all.” The application was rejected.

There was a General Election in November, 1922. The Communist Election Manifesto (Communist, October 28th, 1922) urged the workers to give “conditional” support to Labour Party candidates; that is to say, support only if they pledged themselves against any alliance or understanding with any “Capitalist Party,” and if they pledged themselves to vote against all war credits, etc.

In practice this demanding of pledges was disregarded, and the Communists voted for even the most reactionary of the Labour Party candidates. Thus at Gorton the Communists put forward Mr. Harry Pollitt as Communist candidate in opposition to Mr. John Hodge. Then they withdrew him and asked Mr. Hodge for “pledges.” Mr. Hodge did not pledge himself to vote against war credits, and even on unemployment he declined to satisfy his Communist questioners. The Communist Daily (November 13th, 1922) said : “It is not clear from the Labour candidate’s reply whether he agrees this point in the Communist Party’s programme or not.” Nevertheless Pollitt withdrew his candidature and supported Mr. John Hodge.

Mr. R. Palme Dutt, a prominent Communist, writing on the Labour Party’s election address, said :—

“There is not a single working-class issue in this international policy of the Labour Party Executive.”

With regard to that part of the Labour Party Manifesto dealing with home affairs Mr. Dutt said :—

“Their programme is a programme of Reconstruction, but it is the Reconstruction of Capitalism.” (Communist, November 4th, 1922.)

Among the Labour Party candidates, whom the Communists supported at the 1922 General Election, were Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly and Mr. MacDonald at Aberavon.

1923—Helping “Ramsay Mac.”

At the 1923 General Election all pretence about “conditional support” was dropped. Now the Communists were not only willing supporters, but were almost lyrical in their enthusiasm for the leaders of the party which they said “is not a Labour Party at all.”

MacDonald they had formerly described as a “lackey of the Bourgeoisie” ; now they felt so friendly that the Workers’ Weekly (December 7th, 1923) affectionately called him “Ramsay Mac.” Their local branch secretary reported on their activities :—

“We Communists here are doing our best to help Ramsay MacDonald to beat the capitalist candidate.”

The Workers’ Weekly described the election campaign as follows :—

“ …. local organisations of the Communist Party are working for Ramsay MacDonald in Aberavon, Bromley in Barrow, Ernest Hunter of the I.L.P. in Hackney, J. R. Clynes in Manchester, and in hundreds of other constituencies.” (Workers Weekly, December 7th, 1923.)

In Barrow they were helping J. Bromley, the Labour Candidate. Their Secretary wrote :—

“All our illusions and theoretical deductions have been hung out on the clothes line to dry.”

The Workers’ Weekly article continued :—

“Working-class unity is being forged in the fight. The Labour Party has officially endorsed as its candidates both Comrade Paul in Rusholme and Comrade Vaughan in Bethnal Green. There are now four Communist candidates officially supported by the National Labour Party. . . .”

Mr. W. Paul’s trump card at the election was a letter from Mr. MacDonald assuring the workers that Mr. Paul was a fit and proper person to be a Labour M.P. !

So the “revolutionary” Communists were united with a party which “is not a Labour Party at all” just for the sake of trying to get four candidates into Parliament.

1924—Relying on Maxton.

After the 1923 General Election the Labour Party entered office for the first time as the Government. (They had, of course, been in the war-time Liberal-Labour-Conservative Coalition). Promptly the Communist Party issued a “Call to All Workers” (February, 1924), in which they complained because the Labour Government did not include “tried and trusty fighters like Lansbury and Smillie” ; and Mr. Tom Bell, in the Communist Review (January, 1924), was assuring us that working-class interests were going to be looked after by Wheatley, Maxton, Johnston and Kirkwood !

Supporting the English Kerensky.

Soon afterwards the affection of the Communists for their friend, “Ramsay Mac,” turned again to hatred. Yet, in spite of that, the General Election in October, 1924 (i.e., after the Labour Government), found the Communist Party again supporting all the Labour Party candidates.

The Workers’ Weekly (October 17th, 1924) said :—

“The Communist Party declares that the task of the moment is return a Labour majority in the present election, in reply to the challenge of the capitalist class.”

They did this in spite of their own admission that the 1924 Labour Government—

“have behaved just like Kerensky in 1917. Instead of using their position to help the workers, they used it to help the capitalists.” (Workers’ Weekly, November 7th, 1924.)

Among the candidates they supported were their old friends, Mr. MacDonald at Aberavon and Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly !

1926—Helping the betrayers of the General Strike.

In 1926 occurred the General Strike, It was claimed by the Communists that that strike failed simply because of the failure of and betrayal by the Labour leaders. (See Labour Monthly, July, 1926.)

Yet, in face of this belief, the Communist Party continued its own betrayal of the interests of the workers by urging them to vote for these same Labour leaders. A Communist Party pamphlet, “Communism is Commonsense,” published in July, 1926, i.e., two months after the failure of the General Strike, contains the following- :—

“. . . Communists urge the workers to support Communist and Labour candidates, even if the latter are Right Wingers, in the hope that they may reflect at any rate to some extent the needs of the masses, and that they will, when the present Labour leaders have got sufficient support in Parliament, form another Labour Government and by its futility prove the uselessness of relying on Parliamentary reform for the achievement of Socialism.” (Page 18.) (Italics ours.)

At the Hull By-election in November, 1926, the Communists issued a leaflet telling the workers to vote for Commander Kenworthy, a recent recruit to the Labour Party. An amusing feature of this was that Kenworthy declared that he had not dropped his Liberalism, but was joining the Labour Party because that Party had taken over the mantle of Liberalism.

1928—Communists still support MacDonald

In February, 1928 (see Communist Review of that date), the Communist Party published a thesis giving its reasons for continuing to support the Labour Party. In the course of the article we are told :—

“Even in the case of MacDonald, Thomas, Henderson and Co., the party cannot (1) advise the workers to vote Liberal or Tory, (2) advise mere abstention, (3) put up a candidate who would let in the Liberal or Tory.”

It will be noticed that the Communists had now deserted their 1921 attitude of defying the charge of splitting the Labour vote.

Finding it hard to fight for their own programme, they had given up the fight. In 1921 they were optimistic and thought that they would receive the support of great numbers of workers. As soon as they found that the number of workers prepared to support them was very small, too small to give them Trade Union and Parliamentary positions, the Communist would-be leaders turned over to the policy of supporting Labour Party candidates so that they themselves could get the votes of workers still intent on voting for capitalism. The Communists were no longer of Mr. Stewart’s early opinion that it was desirable to “leave these latter to the Labour Party.”

Moscow gives its orders.

But at this point Moscow stepped in and ordered the British Party to reverse its policy. They were instructed to run candidates in opposition to some of Labour Party candidates, but to support others. (See Workers’ Weekly, February 24th, 1928.)

In the 1929 General Election the Commmunists ran 25 candidates of their own—all of them unsuccessful. By opposing Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly and Mr. MacDonald at Seaham, Durham, the Communists had, after a long and costly detour, “progressed” almost back to their attitude of 1921. But whereas 1921 their candidate at Caerphilly polled 2,592, in 1929 the Communist polled only 809. Counting only the election expenditure officially returnable, and including the lost deposits, the Communists threw away over £9,000 at that election.

1929—Still prepared to support Labour Party candidates.

Their attitude in 1929 was still not one of straight opposition to the party “which is not a Labour Party at all,” for they were prepared again to stage that piece of deception which they called asking Labour candidates for “pledges.”

In a statement issued to the Press on April 13th, 1929, by the Political Bureau of the Communist Party, this crooked policy was explained :—

“A Labour Government at the present day would be a Government of capitalist rationalisation, only differing from the Tory and Liberal Parties as to the best methods whereby rationalisation could be brought about at the expense of the workers.

It is, therefore, no longer possible for Communist Party to advise the workers to give unconditional support to Labour candidates, even in constituencies not being contested by the Communists.

The Communist Party is advising workers only to vote for such Labour candidates as are prepared to accept a policy of minimum working class demands, involving the repudiation of Mondism, of imperialism, and of the policy of trade union disruption now being actively operated in the trade union movement.

Unless these demands are accepted the Communist Party will advise the workers to refrain from voting,” (See Sunday Worker, April 14th, 1929.)

Yet they admitted in their 1929 election pamphlet, “Class against Class,” that :he Labour Party “is the third capitalist party. It … has nothing to do with Socialism” (page 8).

Explaining away the past.

They also tried to explain away their “changed attitude to the Labour Party.” “Class against Class” contains this tortuous explanation :—

“Prior to the formation of the Labour Government in 1924, the Communist Party, although the leaders of the Labour Party were as treacherous then as now, advised the working class to push the Labour Party into power whilst sharply criticising and exposing the leaders of the Labour Party. To-day this policy is no longer possible for the following reasons.

The situation of 1929 is entirely different from that of the years prior to the General Strike and the Labour Government of 1924. In the years immediately after the war the Labour Party . . . was a federation of trade unions and parties offering facilities for criticism from within and a means of struggle for our Party to battle against the middle-class leadership and to strengthen the working class forces within it.

The Labour Government exposed the Labour Party leadership completely. It proved the Communist Party criticism to be correct. The “Minority” Labour Government was nothing more than a coalition with the Tories and Liberals. The Labour leaders “led” the General Strike only to betray it in the face of the challenge of the State.” (p. 9.)

But, by going back over the statements and actions of the Communists during the past ten years, we can see how utterly dishonest this so-called “explanation” is.

The Communists, it will be noticed, justify their support of the Labour Party up to 1924 on the ground that “immediately after the war” the Labour Party was different. Yet, as we have seen above, they opposed it in 1921 for precisely the same reason as that which they give now. When Mr. Stewart declared in 1921 that it was “not a Labour Party at all,” he was speaking truly.

They claim that the situation was different after the 1924 Labour Government. But, as we have also shown, they continued to support the Labour Party after the 1924 Labour Government. And was not the war-time Coalition alone a sufficient reason for opposing the Labour Party before 1924 ?

They claim, too, that the General Strike altered the situation and that the Strike was betrayed by the Labour leaders. Yet we have seen that after the General Strike they were still supporting these Labour leaders, “even if the latter are Right Wingers,” including a professing Liberal like Commander Kenworthy. And they would have continued to support all the Labour leaders, “even in the case of MacDonald, Thomas, Henderson and Co.,” if Moscow had not ordered otherwise.

This is the record of political tricksters who claim in “Class against Class” that “No Party can serve the robbers and the robbed at the same time,” and that the Communist Party is “the only Party of the workers.” They have known all the corrupt arts of the political job-hunters except one ; they have not known how to capture the glittering prizes. They should learn that some show of consistency and sincerity is required even in the most opportunist politician if he is to be successful.

Edgar Hardcastle

Emancipation or Palliation? (1931)

Pamphlet Review from the July 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

About five years ago the Socialist Party published a pamphlet entitled “Socialism,” which examined the position of the working class and indicated the only way to effect a change in that position. The Communist Party has recently issued a pamphlet, professing to cover similar ground, entitled “Capitalism or Socialism in Britain.”

An old tag has it that comparisons are odious. Let us be odious.

Our pamphlet contains forty-eight pages. Mr. Palme Dutt’s effort consists of only thirty-two similar pages. The Socialist Party’s pamphlet is sold for 2d. The Communist Party charge 3d. In spite of their superior financial resources, they want half as much again for two-thirds of the material. So much for quantity, Now for quality.

The Communist pamphlet contains no actual information that has not been given by the S.P.G.B., but it does contain statements which are false. Mr. Dutt repeats the long-ago exploded legend that Socialism has been established in Russia. We are told that the workers there own and control the means of production, in spite of the fact that the Soviet Government, like other capitalist Governments, has a large and growing national debt upon which it pays high rates of interest to the investors. It has just announced its intention of floating another £160,000,000 loan, upon which it will pay 10 per cent. (Manchester Guardian Weekly, June 12th). Although it is common knowledge that agricultural production in Russia is still largely in the hands of independent peasant concerns, and that the so-called collective and State farms are run on capitalist lines, Mr. Dutt glibly informs us that all production is organised according to a single plan (p. 16). “All production,” he goes on, “is directed solely to supplying the workers’ needs. It is for use, not profit.” Yet a few paragraphs further on he speaks of “the mighty Socialist productive machine flooding the world with cheap goods with which they (the capitalists) cannot compete.” Perhaps next time Mr. Dutt deals with this matter he will be kind enough to explain why British, American and German capitalists in particular are supplying Russia with the machinery upon which the success of its economic plans depends. Is it because they have conceived a laudable desire to assist in the “building-up of Socialism “?

The Labour Party, of course, comes in for a good deal of Mr. Dutt’s criticism, but he keeps judiciously quiet concerning the electoral support which the Communist Party gave to the Labour Party for years. We have yet to hear what the working-class (or even the Communist Party) have gained by this activity. In passing, it is interesting to note that where, as at Pontypridd and St. Rollox, by-elections are fought minus a Communist candidate, the Communist Party have taken to recommending the workers to write “Communist” across their ballot papers. Communist champions have, in the past, been remarkably fond of sneering at this form of action when advocated by the S.P.G.B. Now that their support has been ruthlessly spurned by the Labour Party, they have no choice but “to add” (in their own words) “to the gaiety of returning officers.”

While the Communist Party was busily engaged in 1923 and 1924 in securing the return to Parliament of ex-Coalition. Government office-holders, such as Clynes and Henderson (thus proving false to the Third International’s slogan, “Remember the Imperialist War”), the Socialist Party was consistently opposing the Labour Party. Our withers are unwrung, therefore, by Mr. Dutt’s diatribe against “Socialist Imperialism.” Unlike his party, we have never had truck nor lot with any such monstrous hybrid. We can, therefore, criticise his support of Indian Nationalism with a clean record so far as working-class interests are concerned. The maintenance of the British Empire is no concern of ours, but neither is “the national liberation of the colonial peoples,” which Mr. Dutt describes as “the first duty of free workers of Britain.” Experience of Nationalist movements from Ireland to China convinces us that the workers in these respective countries have nothing to gain by giving them support. Mr. Dutt attempts to deny that national liberation “means the strengthening of the native exploiters against the masses.” “On the contrary,” he says, “it is just British imperialism that maintains, buttresses and builds its power on alliance with the most reactionary blood-sucking native elements in each country—the decaying Indian

princes, the priestly powers, the landlords (often created ariilicially by British rule), the middlemen traders, the moneylenders. Remove the sword of British Imperialism which maintains and protects these, and the working masses will soon deal with them and advance to Socialism” (p. 30). It is necessary to note that he leaves unmentioned the newer industrial capitalist element who are the strongest supporters of the Nationalists and have probably the most to gain from some form of independence in India, and confines himself to attacking the “reactionary,” i.e., the feudal and semi-feudal survivals among the Indian ruling class, and the actual agents of the British Government. He ignores, in other words, the fact that a more modern mode of exploitation is developing in India and giving rise to a demand for political changes in accordance therewith. The Indian capitalists want a place in the sun on an equality with the capitalists of the rest of the world. Mr. Dutt’s pretence that the “working masses of India” are ready to “advance to Socialism,” once the British are out of the way, is the most pitiful childishness.

Those of his readers who are inclined to fall for that sort of thing would do well to ponder upon the fate of the followers of the Chinese Communists in 1927. Having helped the Nationalist Kuo-Min-Tang Party in its struggle with the “reactionary elements,” thousands of workers were butchered in the streets of Shanghai and Canton when the Kuo-Min-Tang was in the saddle. Whether the Indian Nationalists will succeed in acquiring a similar measure of power remains to be seen. One thing, however, is certain : their power will not be that of the workers and peasants.

The rest of Mr. Dutt’s pamphlet betrays a similar conflict between his revolutionary pretensions and reformist proposals. Although he tells us in his preface “that no policy of patching up capitalism can avail,” he cannot resist the temptation to suggest a few patches. Hence (on p. 28) we get the usual “Communist” demands for “minimum wages, seven-hour day, fortnight’s holiday with pay, workers’ control in the factories.” All this, mind, as an immediate result of “workers’ rule,” the capitalists having been “expropriated” on page 24 !

These demands, of course, do not present anything essentially different from the programme of the I.L.P. or the Liberal Yellow Book. Scientific exploitation is quite consistent with minimum rates, shorter hours, regular holidays, and factory committees. In Russia and Germany, where the works councils have statutory rights, they have long ago been subordinated to the Trade Unions and used by the State in capitalist interests. Shop stewards prove as helpless against these interests as do Trade Union leaders. Yet Mr. Dutt, like the Communists generally, goes on chanting the stale old “industrialist” tags about building up the workers’ power in the factories. Ex-shop-stewards who had to join the Communist Party because, with the post-war slump, they lost their industrial jobs, talk with their tongue in their cheeks about “workers’ control” ; not forgetting to mention, however, the necessity for the “leadership” of the Communist Party. That leadership has cost the workers dear wherever it has been accepted. Instead of “the capitalist State” being smashed, it has been the workers” heads, if nothing worse. The way to power is through organisation based upon knowledge. The Socialist Party through its literature assists in supplying’ that knowledge free from the confusing mixture of obsolete and unscientific Radicalism. Emancipation, not palliation, is our watchword.

Eric Boden

Can there be Freedom of the Press? (1941)

From the April 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The suppression of the Daily Worker by the Home Secretary has led to lively arguments about the whole question of the freedom of the Press, freedom of meetings and freedom of discussion, and it is something on which the S.P.G.B. has a unique contribution to make. The attitude taken up by the various persons concerned can be briefly summarised as follows. The Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Morrison, says that while he wishes to interfere as little as possible with the freedom of the Press, a line has to be drawn when there is “systematic publication of matter calculated to foment opposition to the prosecution of the war to a successful issue.” The Liberal Manchester Guardian, while recalling John Stuart Mill’s famous defence of freedom of the Press, nevertheless finds itself in agreement with the suppression. To the extent that there is criticism of the Home Secretary it has, in the main, turned only on the method, not the suppression itself. These critics would have preferred that the Daily Worker, instead of being suppressed by order of the Home Secretary, should have been charged with some specific offence and brought before the Courts, where it could have defended itself. The News Chronicle went so far as to say that “if it had been any other paper …. suppression without proceedings would have raised a storm of protest” (News Chronicle, January 29th, 1941). The Daily Worker itself, through its editor, Mr. W. Rust, retorted that though quite prepared to face a Court of Law, “for our part we object to the assassination of liberty whatever the method employed” (News Chronicle, January 28th, 1941).

Since there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary, the Manchester Guardian and the News Chronicle, when they say that they have not wanted a policy of suppression but have been led by circumstances to support it in a particular case, it is at once apparent that they find it in practice impossible to apply their professed principle of freedom. Is it the principle that is wrong or must the circumstances be changed? In other words, is the S.P.G.B. right in its claim that there is not and never can be unfettered freedom of expression until Socialism has been established?

John Stuart Mill on Liberty

John Stuart Mill, in his essay “On Liberty,” written in 1849, stated the classic case for freedom of discussion, etc. He considered all the arguments for and against suppression and firmly declared his conclusion that “There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” (See Everyman edition—”Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government.” Page 78.)

“We can never be sure,” he wrote, “that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still” (p. 79).

His argument was not concerned primarily with the right of the individual, but with the loss to society, for, he said, it is in the interest of mankind that every view should be freely stated and every criticism of accepted opinions heard and considered. Only by such a clash of views can the truth be established. Among many interesting points in his essay is his demonstration of the falsity of the sentimental opinion that “truth always triumphs over persecution” (p. 89). With many examples, he shows that history “teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries.”

He did not forget to stress the obligation of minorities to state their unpopular views temperately and with restraint if they wish them to make their way against prejudice and inertia.

Communists always against Freedom of Speech

When the editor of the Daily Worker stated that the Communists’ “object to the assassination of liberty, whatever the method employed,” he must have been counting on the ignorance of those who read his statement. It is utterly untrue. From first to last, and in every place where they have had the opportunity, the Communists have sought to prevent their opponents, of whatever kind, from expressing their views. In the early days Lenin was frankly contemptuous of the facilities that exist under capitalist democracy for workers’ organisations to exist and to express their views. In a document presented to the First Congress of the Communist International at Moscow, March 6th, 1919, Lenin describes “freedom of meeting” as “an empty phrase,” “Liberty of the Press” as “a delusion,” and roundly declared that “even in the most democratic republics there reigns in practice the terrorism and dictatorship ol the bourgeoisie.” (“The Bolshevik Theory,” Postgate, 1920, pages 205-207). He was able to reach these conclusions by taking the handicaps that actually do exist for workers’ organisations under capitalist democracy and exaggerating and distorting them to the degree necessary to fit his description. It all helped to justify his and Trotsky’s defence of terrorism and dictatorship in Russia. It was only in later years that the Communists in Great Britain quietly shelved their talk of dictatorship, civil war, etc., and posed as defenders of the workers’ “democratic rights.” In 1920, however, when the Communist, Mr. R. Palme Dutt, wrote his “The Two Internationals,” he had no hesitation in saying that the Communist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat meant the exclusion of any conceptions of ‘liberty’ which militate against it and therefore capitalist interests.”

He went on to say: —

“Against the “ideologies” of “liberty,” “democracy,” individual rights,” etc., which have always formed the historical cover of capitalist activity . . . must be set the concrete principle of the proletarian state . . .” (Page 32.)

The Communists nowadays talk a different language and do not openly avow their preference for dictatorship and suppression and contempt for democratic methods and tolerance. Posing as democrats and as representatives of working-class interests, they put forward a more cautiously phrased policy. To start with, they are in favour of suppressing Fascist papers and organisations on the ground that the Fascists are “enemies of the people”; but, as Mr. Frank Owen records, when Mr. Rust, editor of the Daily Worker was asked to be more explicit about this, he replied “that he regarded all capitalist newspapers as enemies of the people, too ” (Evening Standard, January 28th, 1941). So, it appears, as Mr. Frank Owen puts it, “my colleagues and I are due for a short, sharp ride if ever Comrade Rust comes to sit in Home Secretary Morrison’s seat.”

Then Mr. Harry Pollitt has on occasion amplified the scope of “enemies of the people.” In his election address, when he stood as Parliamentary candidate at Whitechapel a few years ago, he lumped the Labour Party along with Liberals, Tories and Fascists. His cry was: “Away with these enemies of the workers !”

And in the Daily Worker of January 29th, 1930, Mr. Pollitt issued a stirring call to action He urged the workers to smash up meetings of the Labour Party.

“. . . The mere passing uf resolutions is not enough. There should not be a Labour meeting held anywhere but what the revolutionary workers in that district attend such meetings and fight against the speakers whoever they are, so-called “left,”‘ “right,” or “centre.”

They should never be allowed to address the workers. This will bring us into conflict with the authorities, but this must be done. The fight can no longer be conducted in a passive manner.”

Needless to say, Communists have often told us that if they got power the Socialist Standard would naturally be “dealt with.”

In short, the Communist idea of freedom of the Press is the suppression of every journal except those approved by themselves, all on the model of the Soviet dictatorship.

The Socialist Point of View

While accepting broadly the arguments of John Stuart Mill, Socialists point out how impossible it is to expect his case to be accepted under capitalism. The S.P.G.B. has always taken its stand on the method of argument and persuasion to gain acceptance of the Socialist case. Knowing that there can be no Socialism except through the use of democratic methods, we need to win over the majority to our side. The Socialist case is true and can be shown to be true. It is in line with the discernible facts of the modern world, and what has convinced us will in due time convince the majority of the workers. It is for this reason that the S.P.G.B. allows and invites opposition and discussion on our platform and at our meetings. We do not believe, as do the Communists, that Socialism can be attained by a minority who do understand Socialism acting as guides and leaders to a majority who do not understand. We reject as dangerous and impracticable the Communist policy enunciated in 1920 by Mr. Palme Dutt: —

“The workers as a whole rebel against a regime of which they feel the pricks, without any pre-conceived doctrinaire theory. It is the business of the communist to guide their movement into its realisation in the dictatorship of the proletariat.”—(“Two Internationals,” page 32.)

For the Communist, the idea of suppression and controlling the ideas of the workers fits in naturally with the idea of the “intelligent minority” who lead the non-Socialist masses. Rejecting the latter policy, the Socialist likewise rejects the doctrine of suppression and control of ideas.

But what chance have Mill’s principles of being applied under capitalism ? Obviously no Government at war (and no Government which holds Communist views of political struggle being of the nature of “heavy civil war”) will ever consent to completely unfettered freedom of the Press in wartime. To do so would be to risk endangering war effort. Even in peace-time it is unthinkable that all the various restrictions on publication and utterance in the shape of laws against libel, blasphemy, publication of official secrets, etc., could be removed ; if only for the reason that the libel laws are based on property rights, and capitalism is a system in which property rights are of supreme importance. Moreover, no amendment of laws directly affecting the Press can serve to redress the inequality that must exist between the propertied class, who can go to any expenditure to finance the publication of journals representing their interests and point of view, and the propertyless working-class, who must make do with publishing organs of opinion within the limit of their meagre resources.

Socialism alone will bring about conditions in which all will enjoy the rights and obligations of free utterance and discussion, and the human race will gain to the full the benefits of such freedom.

Edgar Hardcastle

More About the People’s Convention (1941)

From the March 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Political organisation in this country takes many forms. There are organisations which exist solely in order to gain one reform. When it has been gained their purpose has gone. This was true of the women’s suffrage organisations. There are the Tory and Liberal parties, agreed on the retention of capitalism but divided over such questions as free-trade and tariffs, and the amount of taxation to be laid on the backs of different sections of the propertied class. Until capitalism is ended such parties can go on existing, there are always new problems arising for them to deal with, always new opportunities of fighting for their respective sectional interests, and always the need to obtain working-class support for capitalism by the offer of reforms to alleviate the most distressing hardships. Then there are the Labour Party and Co-operative Party, which came into existence primarily to defend the interests of the trade unions and co-operative societies respectively. They have attained stability by taking over much of the former support given to the Liberal Party by workers desiring reforms of one kind or another. Then there is the S.P.G.B., which exists solely for the achievement of one purpose, though a fundamental one, the establishment of Socialism in place of capitalism.

Another category of political parties is what may be called the parasite parties. They live by exploiting the disgruntled supporters of the bigger parties. Among these have been the Communist Party, and all the brood of organisations hatched out by the Communist Party. Every crisis that happens at home or internationally produces its groups of persons dissatisfied on personal or other grounds with the policy adopted by the majority in the bigger parties. Always there are a certain number of workers who vaguely see that there is something wrong with asking for moderate reforms and think the remedy is to ask for bigger reforms—so if the Labour Party asked for a 5s. increase of old-age pensions they would easily fall for propaganda which tells them it is more “revolutionary” to ask for 7s. 6d. As the Labour Party by tradition is nowadays the normal gathering ground for discontented workers it follows that the parasite parties have their most favourable opportunity whenever it happens that the Labour Party is otherwise engaged; for example, when the Labour Party is in office wrestling with problems of the administration of capitalism, or when it is part of a Government carrying on war. While this situation lasts everything plays-into the hands of those adepts at political scheming and wire-pulling, the Communist Party. Their latest venture is the so-called People’s Convention, which met on January 12th, 1941, at the Royal Hotel and Holborn Hall, London. A pamphlet, “The People Speak,” has been published by the National Committee (price 3d.), described somewhat erroneously as “The Official Report.” It does not contain a full report of the proceedings. Out of 62 pages, 34 are given up to the speeches of three of the leading lights—Mr. Harry Adams, Mr. Pritt, K.C., and Mr. W. J. R. Squance. Then follow 15 pages consisting of “points from speeches” of 26 delegates, prominent among them being leading Communists. The remainder of the pamphlet is taken up with messages sent to the Convention, resolutions passed, and particulars of delegates, etc. The claim is made that there were present 2,234 delegates “directly representing 1,200,000.” Since the Convention took place several organisations have repudiated the representative capacity of the delegate who claimed to represent them; nevertheless, it may well be true that the Convention had something like the support it claims; there are, unfortunately, very large numbers of muddle-headed people capable of supporting the hotch-potch programme of the Convention.

The People Speak—Under Direction

The claim is made early in the pamphlet that the Convention was for democracy. “Here, indeed, were the People. Here, indeed, was democracy in action.” It is a little odd, therefore, to find no sign that the “people,” i.e., the delegates, had any hand in selecting the star speakers or in deciding that what purports to be an official report should contain very little of what the rest of the delegates had to say. Equally odd is the way in which “the people” selected their National Committee. On page 61 we are told that the Standing Orders Committee (who elected them, by the way; and how?) “recommends that 26 be elected by this Convention to the National Committee.” And on page 62 we are told that the Standing Orders Committee itself also presented to the delegates a list of 26 persons whom it recommended to be the elect! “Here, indeed, was democracy in action” !

What was Said and left Unsaid

On every page of the report are the unmistakable signs of the nature of the Convention and of the handiwork of the wire-pullers behind the scenes, carefully leaving the well-meaning muddlers to have their say “from their hearts.”

The first point to notice is that among the prominent figures are men who claim that Socialism is their aim and who have (elsewhere) been heard to admit that Socialism is the only hope of the workers. On this occasion there was, it seems, a curious reluctance or forgetfulness to say anything about Socialism. The resolutions contain no reference to it. Nor do the speeches, although here and there were appeals to Socialists to support the campaign. About the nearest approach was that of Mr. Palme Dutt, Communist Party, who (page 37) mentions Socialism and suggests that “a People’s Government” is “the first step forward.”

This coyness about mentioning Socialism prompts the question whether “the People” had spoken prior to the Convention urging all and sundry not to raise such a disturbing question. Or perhaps the idea of soft pedalling came from some other quarter.

The Chairman, Mr. Harry Adams, was frank and enlightening about the origin of the Convention. On page 9 he is reported as saying : —

“The mighty movement of popular anger surged forward last year after exposure of ruling class incompetence and bankruptcy as shown in Norway and at Dunkirk in the corruption of war profiteering and the neglect of the needs of the people. This was the starting point of the People’s Convention Movement.”

What happens to a Party which owes its birth to a mood of pessimism about the war when the tide turns? “Born after Dunkirk, died after Benghazi,” may well be its epitaph.

The Programme adopted by the Convention contains about a couple of dozen demands, ranging from “adequate A.R.P. bomb-proof shelters” to increased wages, soldiers’ pay, pensions, compensation, insurance and unemployment allowances. Also, of course, a “People’s Government,” and a “People’s peace.” Some delegates added a few things of their own. The Chairman favours nationalisation of the mines (page 12). Mr. Pritt calls the League of Nations “an admitted swindle” (page 21) but did not say a word about the Russian Government and the British Communist Party who tried for several years to foist that swindle on the workers. He demanded that the banks “must serve the whole people.” It would be entertaining to have that scintillating legal mind explaining just how a bank can serve the whole people. He also wants men to be “free to speak or write, not merely without losing their liberty, but without losing their jobs” (page 24), but gave no reason why that very desirable end is good for this country but not for workers in Russia. Mr. Pritt was scathing about the charge that the Convention is “against the Labour Party” (page 25). But surely, Mr. Pritt, either the Labour Party is in favour of the Convention Programme, in which case there is no need for the Convention, or the Labour Party is against the Programme, in which case Mr. Pritt, on his own showing, should be against the Labour Party?

Mr. Pritt does indeed answer this question. The only way in which the Convention Programme cuts across Labour policy and principles, he says, “is the linking up of its leaders with their class enemies” (page 25). This means, of course, the present Government. But who are the present Government? A large number of them are the leaders of the Labour Party, and the Prime Minister is Mr. Churchill. “Ah,” Mr. Pritt would say, “they ought not to be in the Government with Mr. Churchill.” Elsewhere in the pamphlet (page 48) Mr. Pollitt of the Communist Party made this quite plain. He spoke of the real enemies of the workers being “in the Churchill Government,” and wants the Churchill Government to be removed to make way for the People’s Government.

But has Mr. Pritt really forgotten that it was Mr. Pollitt and the Communist Party who were bellowing in March, 1939, for Mr. Churchill, Sir A. Sinclair and Mr. Attlee to get together and form a Government? What about it, Mr. Pritt?

All the delegates and speakers appear to have had not a particle of doubt that a “People’s Government” (whatever that is, nobody troubled to explain) would solve all things. In particular they saw in a “People’s Government” the Open Sesame to Peace. Perhaps they have all forgotten that this is not the first occasion a lot of them have wanted a “People’s Government.” As recently as September 19th, 1939 (when the Communist Party was still all in favour of the war) the Daily Worker was demanding “a People’s Government capable of prosecuting that war.”

“The war to halt Fascist aggression,” shouted the Daily Worker, “must go on with redoubled energy, and the British people will insist on a People’s Government capable of prosecuting that war.”

On the subject of war it is also worth while to recall that, although the Communist Party denounces the present Government and the Chamberlain Government for not building adequate deep bombproof shelters to protect civilian population fully against air-raids, the non-existence of such shelters did not deter the Communist Party from calling for the war before it came and demanding its energetic prosecution after it had begun, knowing full well what the consequences would be for the civilian population.

Among other objects of the Convention are the strengthening of the Co-operative movement, but simultaneously “we will work to safeguard the interests of the small shopkeeper, small farmer and consumer” (page 57). Mr. Squance, in his speech introducing this, went a bit further and claimed that the Convention also represents the interests of “small business men” (page 32). One delegate, who claimed to speak for landworkers, does not seem to have thought such a lot of helping small farmers, for she spoke up for “collectivisation” (page 44).

Altogether as much nonsense was talked as it was possible to crowd into a one-day Conference. The cost to the National Committee was £2,200, a lot of steam was let off, and a good time was had by all.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: The Communist Party and Violence. (1926)

Editorial from the March 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Neither the Communists, nor any other section of the working-class movement, desire or advocate violence or civil war in any form.” Thus writes Palme Dutt, of the Communist Executive, in the Labour Monthly for Dec., 1925. Reading this and some of the speeches in the C.P. trial one would imagine the Communist Party were sworn enemies of insurrection and armed uprising. But the theses of the 3rd International on the “The Role of the C.P. in the Communist International” lays down a very different policy. Thus : “The working class cannot achieve victory over the bourgeoisie by means of the general strike alone and by the policy of folded arms. The proletariat must resort to an armed uprising.” The Statutes of the 3rd International are very clear upon this point. They state :“The aim of the Communist International is to organise an armed struggle for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the establishment of an International Soviet Republic as a transition to the complete abolition of the Capitalist State.”

Editorial: The Decay of the Communist Party. (1924)

Editorial from the October 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard 

After a meteoric career lasting no more than 3 or 4 years the Communist Party in this country finds itself trying with ever less success to stem the tide of members drifting away to the Labour Party or into apathy. In spite of the blundering ineptitude of its leaders in a sphere which they thought peculiarly their own—the sphere of stunts and political intrigue—they had at first a small measure of success. That they were able to achieve this was due partly to the money received by them from Moscow and thrown away in advocating futile insurrectionary policies which were always promptly disavowed whenever the authorities threatened suppression, but chiefly due to the chaos of trade and production after the world war, and the consequent weakened hold on the workers’ minds of pre-war political ideas and allegiances. But even in ground apparently so fertile the fruit of their labours was ridiculously small in comparison to the cost in money and energy.

Although they began with a flourish and reported frequent huge accessions of new members, they have in fact failed to grow and even to hold their initial position. Their total present membership is less than the 5,000 who were alleged to have joined them from the I.L.P. in 1922. Weaker numerically, they are weaker too in the respect they can demand from the class-conscious worker. From vigorous if somewhat hysterical hostility towards the Labour Party, they turned in 1921 to the United Front policy. They then claimed that support of anti-working-class candidates was not incompatible with the continuation ot communist propaganda and the denunciation of the very men they were asking the workers to vote into power. Incredible as it may seem, it required considerable experience to convince them that the communist rank and file would always in this dilemma be compelled to suppress their own views in order not to offend the Labour Party’s capitalist sympathisers. While the job seekers and the light-minded intellectual riff-raff which had been drawn in by the cash and glitter of the Communist movement saw in the new policy only the promise of elevation to the House of Commons. The boasted thousands of “communist” votes given to communist Labour candidates showed, not the strength but the weakness of the Communist Party; the dependence of a so-called independent organisation on Labour votes and the Labour Party machine. So soon as they found this out the careerists and the “intellectuals” began to desert the sinking ship, following, of course, the ancient custom of their kind of giving every excuse but the true one. Meynell, Malone, Windsor and later, Walton Newbold, Ellen Wilkinson and Philips Price are some of those who have left because of the call of ambition, the passing of the excitement of the earlier months, or simply because they had learned through experience that the fundamental ideas on which Communist Policy had been built were partly false and wholly inapplicable except in the peculiar conditions which gave them birth in Russia.

The disgust and confusion which follow these “betrayals” add point to our criticism of leader worship; the workers lose more than they can possibly gain from the magnifying of the individual and dependence on his leadership. Having foolishly overrated, they now, spitefully belittle the ability of their late members. What is however of rather more importance is the opportunity that offers here of justifying the position of the Socialist Party.

When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia we alone of the organisations claiming to be socialist in this country, refused to be swept off our feet either by hostile prejudice or by misguided enthusiasm. We never lent ourselves to capitalist condemnation of Bolshevik “violence,” a pastime which was very popular with Labour men who had been preaching murder for the capitalist class during the war, nor did we deceive ourselves with unfounded hopes and mistake intentions for performances. We held that economic backwardness and the anti-socialist peasants would forbid the establishment of Socialism in Russia, and we held that the seizure of power by a minority could not succeed, and need not be attempted in Great Britain where political traditions, institutions and development had been so different. We were told that we were wrong, and the C.P.G.B. came into being to show how it could be done. Now, seven years after the initial success of the Bolsheviks, their too servile imitators are having to confess failure.

Walton Newbold writes (“Forward,” Sept. 13th) :—

   “From the autumn of 1920, although it was almost impossible to see it at the time, Capitalism had won, not only the advantage, but the decisive advantage, here in Britain as elsewhere. . . .

   There will be no further revolution in Europe for many a long year.”

This is strange talk from one who discoursed then so glibly and learnedly on the “collapse of capitalism.”

Philips Price, in whose judgment the communists were used to express the utmost confidence, takes up a similar attitude. He chides the communists with assuming

   “that the same process must be gone through in Western Europe as in Russia, where there never was a Parliamentary machine elected in geographical constituencies and on a democratic franchise. (Forward, August 30th.)

The editor of the “Workers’ Weekly” tries to minimise the force of his argument by offering evidence to show that Newbold had for long been expressing more or less clearly the views on which he based his resignation. But what are we to think of a party which discovers only when a member resigns that the opinions be held years before are incompatible with the party’s position ?

In December, 1922, Newbold wrote this :

  “I, like my comrade Saklatvala, am a member of the Labour Party. Either as a member of the Fabian Society or of the I.L.P. or otherwise, I have been a member of that party without intermission since the autumn of 1908. I have never had any cause to disagree with the Labour Party as such.” (“Manchester Guardian,” Dec. 7, 1922.)

And as a matter of fact, in December, 1923, the C.P.G.B.’s official attitude was to give unqualified support to all Labour candidates.

The Manifesto issued by the Executive Committee of the C.P.G.B. during the election contained an appeal to the workers to “Support the Labour and Communist candidates” without any kind of qualification. They themselves in the same issue of the “Communist Daily” which printed the appeal, boasted of the help their members were giving to such men as Jack Mills and John Hodge. Harry Pollitt, Communist candidate, withdrew in favour of the latter and spoke on his platform, although Hodge refused to give a satisfactory answer to the questions put by the unemployed. (“Communist Daily,” 13th November, 1923.)

The Communist Party did and does support reactionary Labour men, but because Newbold wanted the criticism of these people to be confined to private meetings, and wrote that “the moment they came out there was to be no difference between the most extreme right men and left wingers, like himself,” he is denounced by the editor of the “Workers’ Weekly” as “favouring the enemy” (12th Sept.). The charge is surely more damaging to the accuser than to the accused, for how does Newbold’s policy differ from their own of denouncing Labour men at private Communist meetings and then going out to ask workers to vote for a Thomas or a “monstrous gnome” like Stephen Walsh, or allowing their members to appeal for votes on the strength of a letter from MacDonald, as did Paul in Manchester?

And it was the “Workers’ Weekly” itself under Palme Dutt’s editorship which published after the election an article by Newbold which contained the following :—

  “If we are not proud of Thomas as Thomas we shall be proud of him as a Labour Minister. Our business is to make him feel, the responsibility, putting the stress on the first, word “Labour,” rather than the second word “Minister.” . . .

   In the next few months we shall have to do a great deal of barking back at the “boss” class, and as little as possible, I hope, of snapping at our leaders.”

When, therefore, Palme Dutt goes on to say that in spite of Newbold’s defection the Communist party “has no reason to revise its attitude to the Labour Party,” we cannot refrain from asking what on earth he means. Which of its half-dozen policies is the C.P. determined to persist in? The policy of 1921 of open hostility in theory, coupled in fact with the opposition to some (MacDonald) and the support of others (Naylor), or the policy of 1922 and 1923 of supporting them all where they needed support at election times, and keeping the denunciation where it could do no harm? Or the policy of support on the political field and opposition to the same persons and policies in the Trade Unions?

Palme Dutt can only reply that they will “persist in their policy.” The fact is that the “tacticians” blundered again. They might themselves be proud of J. H. Thomas, but they soon found that the only people from whom they could expect to win support were not proud of him at all, and this explains why T. Johnston, who in January they considered to be a staunch fighter for the proletariat, is described in September as a “capitalist lackey” as are the ministers and other supporters of the Labour Government (“Workers’ Weekly,” 12th Sept.).

And it seems that Newbold and the rest of the “traitors” have the laugh after all. After they have been ridiculed for ignorance and denounced for their cowardice and treachery, they will still as Labour candidates receive the votes and assistance of C.P. members !

They cannot even condemn Newbold for his imperialist tendencies, for it was while he was “Communist” member for Motherwell in 1923 that he admits having defended the Navy as essential for the protection of “our food ships,” and no public condemnation of him was made by his party. (“Forward,” 30th August, 1924.)

It would also be interesting to know what is now supposed to be the attitude of the Communists on the question of minority revolution. Do they hold with Trotsky (“Communist,” 6th Aug., 1921) that the victory of the working class “can only be achieved by the capacity to conduct battles, and above all by gaining over the majority of the working class.” Or do they still believe that an “intellectual minority” can do the work? It was as recently as the end of 1923 that the German Communists made a futile attempt, in spite of the fact that their strength, as shown by the Reichstag elections, was only about 12 per cent. of the votes cast. And the left wing who dominated the party (980 delegates to 369 of the others combined), referring to this rising, were still able to declare, in April, 1924, that “victory—the seizure of power by the workers—was not only possible, but historically necessary.” (“Workers’ Weekly,” May 16th, 1924.)

In all this welter of confusion the S.P.G.B. stands alone and unshaken. I.L.P. pacifists join hands with Labour jingoes building cruisers to solve unemployment, and joyfully endorse in the Dawes Report a new attempt to intensify the slavery of the European working class; while Communists call them knaves, and vote them into Parliament.

The Communists, trying to emulate their fellow confusionists in the I.L.P., just hug themselves with delight because MacDonald has agreed to give a State guarantee of interest payments on a £40,000,000 loan to Russia, for the benefit of certain financial circles. One of their amusing arguments is that it will make work for the unemployed. They have doubtless overlooked the detail that even if work is provided for engineers now, the ultimate result when Russian agriculture has been reorganised and brought up to date by the imported machinery, is that this and other countries will have to face the competition of cheap Russian wheat. This will be good news for the unemployed agricultural workers. While the Communist propagates futile “solutions” of insoluble problems, the Socialist goes on propagating socialism.

We extend an urgent invitation to those who have seen the Socialist Party stand the test of war and would-be revolution and yet maintain the intellectual strength of its position, to come forward and give us their active assistance.

Russian Foreign Policy (1946)

From the February 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russia, like the other powers, is now following the traditional capitalist policy of putting pressure on her weaker neighbours for concessions (oil in northern Persia), or territory (Turkey), thus departing from the treaties entered into in 1921. The following extract from the Communist Palme Dutt’s “World Politics, 1918-1936” (Gollancz, 1937, p. 317) is typical of the line the Communist?, used to take on such manifestations of imperialism : —

   “The treaties with Persia, Afghanistan and Turkey in 1921, as with China in 1924, gave direct expression to the break with the principles of imperialism, in renouncing all rights and claims enforced by Tsarism, and establishing relations of friendship and equality."

Now it is a different story.

Notes by the Way: An Imaginary Incident After the War (1939)

The Notes by the Way column from the December 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Imaginary Incident After the War

Mr. Burgin is the Minister of Supply. Speaking at a luncheon given by the Institution of Production Engineers on November 17th (The Times, November 18th), he told an admiring audience of the vast sums of money being spent on the war; how “in the 75th day of the war £160 millions had been expended by his Department alone. In the week ended November 7th the amount in sterling of new orders was over £20 millions.”

So pleasing was this news that one of Beaverbrook’s papers hailed Mr. Burgin as one of the real discoveries of the war. Sir John Simon says that the war is already costing the Government over £6 millions a day.

On Friday, November 10th, the Director-General of Munitions Production in Mr. Burgin’s Ministry of Supply, Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Brown, spoke enthusiastically about the way the workers are working: —

  We are all grateful for the way in which employers and labour have joined in. I do not recall a single case as regards labour where the men have not given of their utmost.
  The behaviour of the men in the shops and the way they have worked has been simply splendid. They have not only given of their utmost, but in a most astonishing way they have tackled jobs they had never done before.
 lt is amazing to see how those who may have £3,000 or £4,000 worth of work under their responsibility at a lathe, but who are not paid large amounts, accept responsibility quite cheerfully and successfully. —Daily Telegraph November 11th.

Now imagine the following scene in Parliament after the war: —

Mr. Burgin, on behalf of the Government, proposes that, as the workers are “not paid large amounts” and are doing work of great responsibility in an admirable way, there shall be an immediate all-round increase of wages, of a handsome amount. Mr. Burgin then quotes Sir Harold as witness, and is followed by one speaker after another generously paying tribute to these splendid fellows, the workers. Then—after Mr. Burgin and Sir John Simon have explained that money is no object and, anyway, the propertied class are only too willing to make sacrifices—Parliament agrees unanimously.

Curtain!

#    #    #    #

Professor Haldane on Democracy

Writing in the Daily Worker (November 16th), Professor Haldane discusses ancient and modern conceptions of democracy and puts in a plea for careful definition of terms. Yet he falls into curious mental blindness when discussing the Russian dictatorship (which he calls a democracy). This is what he says: —

  It is often stated that the Soviet Union is not a democracy in the British sense because very few elections to the Supreme Soviet are contested, so the electors have no-choice between candidates.

His answer to this is to recall that centuries ago contested elections were rare under the English parliamentary system, and it was only with the struggle between capitalists and landlords that party contests became the rule. Then he adds: —

  “But with the end of the class struggle it is natural that electoral contests should also become unusual."

All of which is ingenious, or muddled, because Professor Haldane is knocking down an Aunt Sally put up by himself. Nobody states that the Soviet Union is not a democracy in the British sense merely “because very few elections . . . are contested," but for the reason that the contesting of elections by any political party except the Communist Party is rigidly forbidden! A very different thing.

Professor Haldiane should continue his examination of Bolshevik totalitarianism.

#    #    #    #

The Stalin-Hitler Pact Reaches Spain and Portugal

The following is from The Times (November 17th, 1939):—

  German agents in Portugal have been instructed to say that Nazism is only another name for a better form of Marxism; both meet in the triumphant cause of anti-capitalism. The aim here is to disrupt the Republic and to confuse popular opinion.
  From Spain comes evidence (confirmed from German sources) that the Germans have established contact with the anti-Francoists and Communists still in Spain, and are actually supporting them financially.
  They want to put pressure on General Franco, and they hope that by creating anxieties within Spain they will at any rate prevent Spanish exports from being sent to Great Britain and to France.
  This is cynical, but no more so than the German dispatch of arms secretly to the Spanish Republicans over a year ago . . .

#    #    #    #

German Convicts more Humane than Nazis

An interesting comment on Nazi concentration camps appeared in a letter from a German refugee, published by the Manchester Guardian (November 9th, 1939). Below is an extract from his letter: —

 "My experience as a prisoner in one of the concentration camps agrees with the White Paper; but I feel obliged to raise my voice in favour of a category of camp prisoners repeatedly mentioned in the reports. These are the so-called “professional .criminals." Maybe they were employed as “overseers" by the camp commander and were intended to act as tools of cruelty and for the disparagement of the non-Aryan prisoners. But in my personal experiences they did not behave like that.
  They did not try “to curry favour with the S.S. by maltreating us” (page 35-6), but they declared themselves from the first day not to be our superiors but our comrades. They had to fulfil the commands given by their superiors, the brutal and cruel S.S. men, but when they could avoid it and be helpful to us they did.
 If ever I had a prejudice against the sentenced criminal I lost it in the camp. Most of the “professional criminals” were never inclined to the sadistic brutality of the S.S. I dare to say that without the buffer formed by our criminals life in the camp would have been far worse than it was.”

#    #    #    #

The Communist International Forgets Fascism

Poor Mr. Harry Pollitt stumbles from one blunder to another. In a meeting he addressed at Glasgow (reported in Forward, November 11th), he pointed out that the Allied governments do not wish to offend Italy, so they do not proclaim “Fascism” as the enemy, only “Hitlerism"—“Not one member of the British Government has yet said that we are fighting against Fascism." He cannot have digested his Daily Worker of November 7th, in which the Communist International issued a lengthy "Call against War.” Hitherto the Communist International has always denounced Fascism and demanded action against the Fascists. This time—since the pact with Hitler —their manifesto nowhere mentions Fascism except to deny the British and French claim that the war is “for the salvation of democracy from Fascism.” Instead of “Fascism” the Communist International now finds (as it used to, back in the early ’nineteen-twenties) that the enemy is “Reaction.” So under cover of a hardly noticeable substitution of words the Communists make way for a return to their old policy of denouncing “reaction,” i.e., the French and British ruling class (who were, until two months ago, "democracies” when Russia wanted their aid), and simultaneously denouncing the Labour parties as the friends of reaction.

The next act in the farcical tragedy was the abject apology published by Mr. Pollitt and Mr. J. R. Campbell in the Daily Worker (November 23rd). Mr. Campbell says: “I narrowed the perspective in such a way as to concentrate oh German Fascism as the main enemy of the British working class. .  . .”

Mr. Pollitt likewise: “My hatred of Fascism had developed by five years' intensive anti-Fascist propaganda, which led to a position where I did not see in time the true role of British imperialism, and saw only German Fascism as the main enemy of the British working-class movement.”

#    #    #    #

Labour Party Peace Aims

At the Caxton Hall on November 8th, 1939, Mr. Attlee made a speech setting forth the War and Peace Aims of the Labour Party. The speech was reproduced at length in the Daily Herald (November 9th). In all ways the statement was typical of the Labour Party belief, that the world can be put right if only the democrats stand firmly by a policy of “Justice for all.” Standing firm means at present waging war, and justice after the war is to mean the following six principles: —

1. Restitution to victims of aggression, but no revenge; peace by agreement of all nations, not by dictation of a few.
2. Recognition of the right of all nations to live and to develop their own civilisation.
3. Complete abandonment of aggression; outlawry of war; and acceptance of the rule of law.
4. Protection of minority rights by international authority.
5. Europe must federate or perish.
6. No imperialism; equal access for all nations to markets and raw materials.

The Times, from whose columns the above summary of the principles is taken, speaks very favourably of Mr. Attlee's statement. In its leader (November 9th) The Times says: —

  Mr. Attlee’s pronouncement yesterday on Labour’s peace aims was clear and decided. It matches well, though it was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, with the declaration of the Foreign Secretary the day before. In no essential particular is there any divergence of opinion, and once again it is proclaimed to all the world that this country is of one mind and purpose in choosing the terrible resort to war rather than submit to the repetition of faith-breaking aggression which makes life intolerable for nations of free and civilised instincts.

Supporters of the Labour Party must think it odd that the organ of Toryism should find itself seeing so nearly eye to eye with Mr. Attlee, for has not the Labour Party often declared—though without real understanding—that war in the modern world is a product of capitalism? Has not the Labour Party also declared—again without understanding—that its aim is to abolish capitalism ?

The explanation of this ability to agree on war and peace aims can be found in the statement itself, for it nowhere mentions Socialism !

Mr. Attlee and the Daily Herald would reply, no doubt, that when he asks for “social justice within states" Socialism is what he means. But though he may make that defence in good faith what he envisages as Socialism is only the old capitalism with its worst evils seemingly pruned away by means of reform legislation. That this is so can be seen by the Daily Herald's belief that the Forestry Commission is “Socialist enterprise” (Daily Herald, November 20th) and by Mr. Attlee's description of the functions of a more powerful International Labour Office after the war: —

 It should be given the task of preparing international minimum standards of wages, hours and industrial conditions, in order that by increased production, by a more just distribution and by the wealth released from expenditure upon arms, the standard of living of the workers shall everywhere be raised. 

Surely the Tory Times can be benevolent about these aims—so could Hitler. But even if such developments were seriously attempted—and capitalism will always provide ample excuses in the shape of crises and “paying for the war” and “recapturing foreign markets” why the attempt should be postponed indefinitely—it will still be capitalism, not Socialism.

#    #    #    #

Communist versus Communist: The Argument Continues

Below are some further extracts from Communist Party declarations about the war : —

From “Why This War?” (Mr. Palme Dutt—published by the Communist Party in November, 1939): —

  We are told that this is a war in defence of peace against aggression and that therefore all defenders of peace and collective security should support it. There never was a bigger lie.—P. 8.
  This war is a fight between imperialist powers over profits, colonies, and world domination.—P. 4.
  This war is not a war for democracy against Fascism. It is not a war for the liberties of small nations.—P.. 4.

From “How to Win the War” (Harry Pollitt— published by the Communist Party in September, 1939. Now withdrawn from circulation): —

  The Communist Party supports the war, believing it to be a just war which should be supported by the whole working-class and all friends of democracy in Britain.—P. 3.
  These fundamental principles of liberty, peace, and Socialism now at stake have determined the decision of the Communist Party. To stand aside from this conflict, to contribute only revolutionary- sounding phrases while the Fascist beasts ride roughshod over Europe, would be a betrayal of everything our forbears have fought to achieve in the course of long years of struggle against capitalism.—P. 4. 

From Daily Worker, September 19th (after the collapse of Poland)

  Not only is every European people viewing the fate of the Polish people with sympathy. It is also viewing it with apprehension. Where will the next blow fall? Who will be the next victim?
  That is why it is impossible for the British and French people to even contemplate a surrender to Nazi aggression. The war to halt Fascist aggression must go on with redoubled energy, and the British people will insist on a people’s Government capable of prosecuting that war.

From a Manifesto issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Daily Worker, August 4th, 1939—a month before war broke out) : — 

  It would be wrong to see the situation to-day, therefore, as a mere repetition of 1914-1918. In the last war, two alliances of great Powers, equally anxious to seize each other’s territory, equally aggressive, confronted each other.
  To-day there is only one alliance of aggressors— Germany, Italy, and Japan—which is, however, being tolerated and encouraged by the pro-Fascist big business elements in other countries.

#    #    #    #

Correction: "The Strange Case of Professor Mamlock”

In the November The Socialist Standard a statement was quoted from the Daily Herald to the effect that the Russian authorities withdrew their anti-Nazi film, ‘‘Professor Mamlock,” after the pact of friendship with Hitler was signed.

Mr. Ivor Montagu, in a letter to the New Statesman (November 18th), says that the film “is not now banned and has not at any time been banned in the Soviet Union.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Capitalism did not collapse (1969)

From the November 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

  Forty years ago, world capitalism was descending into one of its worst ever slumps. So severe and persistent was the depression that the idea grew up, particularly among the "left wing", that the system was about to collapse. Not for the first time the Socialist Party of Great Britain stood aside from a popular clamour. At the depths of the crisis, in February 1932, we published our pamphlet Why Capitalism Will Not Collapse. This is too long to reproduce here in full but we are publishing in the Socialist Standard an abridged version, the first part of which appears this month.

1. Our view of the crisis

Foreward

We are in the midst of a crisis that is world-wide. Every country feels its ravages. Millions and millions of workers are unemployed and in acute poverty. Everywhere there is discontent and a feeling of insecurity, and the prestige of even the strongest governments has been shaken. All sorts of emergency measures have been hastily adopted, but the depression still continues. Working men and women who usually ignore such questions, are now asking why the crisis occurred, what will be its outcome, and whether it could have been avoided. In some minds there is a fear, and in others a hope, that the industrial crisis may bring the present system of society down in ruins, and make way for another.

I. Fears that capitalism will collapse

The purpose of the Socialist Party is to show the working class the need for a complete alteration in the organisation of society. But our work has been made more difficult by the idea that Capitalism may collapse of its own accord. It is clear that if Capitalism were going to collapse under the weight of its own problems then it would be a waste of time and energy to carry on socialist propaganda and to build up a real socialist party aiming at political power. If it were true, as is claimed, that Capitalism will have broken down long before it will be possible for us to win over a majority for the capture of political power, then, indeed, it would be necessary to seek Socialism by some other means. Workers who have accepted the wrong and lazy idea of collapse have neglected many activities that are absolutely essential. They have taken up the fatalistic attitude of waiting for the system to end itself. But the system is not so obliging!

At first sight there seems to be a ground for this idea. Capitalism from time to time develops acute industrial and financial crises; and at the depth of these it does appear to many observers that there is no way out, and that society cannot continue at all unless some way out is found. Men of very different social position and political convictions have been driven to this conclusion—reactionaries and revoluionaries, bankers and merchants, employers and wage-earners.

Let us go over some of the statements made by those who have foretold collapse, and notice how much alike they are. Notice, too, how each one falsifies the preceding ones. The fact of another crisis taking place is proof enough that the earlier crises did not turn out to be insoluble—the patient cannot have more than one fatal attack.

During the 19th century there were about ten well-marked crises. One commenced in England in 1825. William Huskisson, a former President of the Board of Trade, wrote about it in a letter dated 30th December, 1839:

  I consider the country to be in a most unsatisfactory state, that some great convulsion must soon take place. . . . I hear of the distress of the agricultural, the manufactural, the commercial, the West Indian, and all trading interests. . . . I am told land can neither pay rent nor taxes nor rates, that no merchant has any legitimate business. . . . I am also told that the whole race of London shopkeepers are nearly ruined. (“Huskisson Papers.” Pub., Constable, 1931. Page 310.)

Another crisis occurred in the eighteen-eighties, and was dealt with by Lord Randolph Churchill in a speech at Blackpool, in 1884:

  We are suffering from a depression of trade extending as far back as 1874, ten years of trade depression, and the most hopeful either among our capitalists or our artisans can discover no signs of a revival. Your iron industry is dead, dead as mutton; your coal industries, which depend greatly on the iron industries, are languishing. Your silk industry is dead, assassinated by the foreigner. Your woollen industry is in articulo mortis, gasping, struggling. Your cotton industry is seriously sick. The shipbuilding industry, which held out longest of all, is come to a standstill. Turn your eyes where you will, survey any branch of British industry you like, you will find signs of mortal disease. (“Lord Randolph Churchill,” By Winston Churchill, M.P. Pub., MacMillan & Co., Ltd., London, 1906. Vol. I, page 291.)

There is one important thing to notice about the two statements quoted above. Huskisson wrote at a time when England was a protectionist country. He was an advocate of free-trade. Lord Randolph Churchill spoke at a time when England had long been a free-trade country. He was an advocate of protection. It is clear that neither free-trade nor protection offers a solution for trade depressions, and that the return to protection in March, 1932, will not prevent further crises.

Of late we have been asked to take a very serious view of the alleged “adverse balance of trade,” by which is meant that this country has had more imports than exports, with the consequence that debts have been incurred abroad to the extent of the excess of imports. The facts are still the subject of argument, but it is not necessary to go into that question. All that we need to remember is that the fears about the “adverse balance of trade” are not new.

In a paper read to the Royal Statistical Society on December 19th, 1876 (see “Trade, Population and Food,” by S. Bourne, pub. G. Bell and Sons), Mr. Sidney Bourne, who for many years was in the Government Service, engaged in the compilation of trade statistics, painted an alarming picture of Great Britain’s trade. He argued that serious consequences would follow if the adverse balance (which he pointed out was then in evidence) was allowed to continue. He mentioned, too, the considerable and influential body of political and public men who shared his views.

After making the adjustments he considered necessary on account of income from investments owned abroad by British subjects, and the so-called “invisible exports" (i.e., the services, such as shipping and financial services, that are paid for by foreigners, but which do not take the form of actual articles passing through British ports), he declared that there was an “adverse balance" in the years after 1872.

He said:

  In 1872 the true excess would seem to have been on the side of exports rather than imports, to the extent of nearly £4,000,000; but in the following year the imports again predominated, and have continued to do so with increasing weight up to the present moment. (Page 69.)

Mr. Bourne, like many modern observers of the course of trade, was apprehensive about the future:

   I firmly believe that Britain now stands tottering on the eminence to which she has attained, and that it rests entirely with her sons whether a further rise or a rapid fall is to mark her future history. (Page 75.)

II. The Idea of a Blind Revolt of the Workers.

The defenders of Capitalism who have been panic-stricken in times of crisis, have sought for ways to save the social system, which they believed to be in danger. On the other hand, many who desired Socialism have looked at industrial crises not with fear but with hope. They have though that in a time of great unemployment and distress the majority of workers, although not socialists would be forced by their sufferings to revolt against the capitalists and their government, and that they would place in power a government which would try to remould society on a socialist basis.

Similar ideas are held by members of the Labour Party and Independent labour Party, and they were handed down from the Social Democratic Federation to the parties that in 1920 became the Communist Party of Great Britain. It is indeed probable that the Russian Bolshevist leaders, many of whom hold these views, learned them during their exile in England round about the beginning of the century.

In the October, 1931, “Labour Monthly" (just before the General Election), Mr. Dutt, the editor, wrote in a manner indicating the utmost excitement at the likelihood of a decisive crash: “The fight is here," “the crisis marches on relentlessly,” “it is the whole basis of British Imperialism that is now beginning to crack,” “the whole system is faced with collapse,” “the hour of desperate crisis begins”; and much more to die same effect.

Mr. James Maxton, MP., putting the I.L.P. point of view, has been as confident as the communists. He made a speech at Cowcaddens on 21st August, 1931, reported as follows in the columns of the Daily Record,” 22nd August, 1931 (reprinted in “Forward” 12th September):

  I am perfectly satisfied that the great capitalist system that has endured for 150 years in its modern form, is now at the stage of final collapse, and not all the devices of the statesmen, not all the three party conferences, not all the collaboration between the leaders, can prevent the system from coming down with one unholy crash.

(to be concluded)

Link to Part 2